Path: ...!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 21:43:13 +0000
Subject: Re: No true relativist!
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <89ea9e0a4ddc271a7bc16200c6a5dbb4@www.novabbs.com>
 <uC6dnQAond6lYLP6nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <3c273ef12b9952ba62097af7c82733a1@www.novabbs.com>
 <89a6d08110a99bf650447fa73d9bd658@www.novabbs.com>
 <bc3734f4647fe68a89ceab454dc5c6f5@www.novabbs.com>
 <ba6dnaMefPZvdK36nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com>
 <0455b2b068440d558b35709f848a7457@www.novabbs.com>
 <tfCdnVCi-NGcg6z6nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <99c2c2f44a7c8da1492c9df701cdfd70@www.novabbs.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 13:43:38 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <99c2c2f44a7c8da1492c9df701cdfd70@www.novabbs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <v8ednbYzb59staz6nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 46
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-7mAfJaJtDCrhiee6YVaW8AT1Zcx6azvOGNsRDicqtPjhyz7l1q0s1oNX7EPwtu4PTWlp+uAhZ8bRLYH!1rsDGyPE9ClYvfmECiiyKPY2kv0yRaNA4jcUHLLVcyyV+5ambItwfRgUd3gagrR0CdA77VAa7v2q
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 3360

On 11/10/2024 01:24 PM, rhertz wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 20:57:07 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>
>> On 11/10/2024 11:10 AM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>> Ross: I'm impressed by your run-on sentences and inability to make a
>>> coherent argument that is brought to bear on the subject of the thread,
>>> namely, the ridiculous excuse for an ad hoc rescue by relativity of the
>>> Big Bang from the center of the universe.
>>
>> Pretty simple, the sky survey of 1920 has 99% redshift, 2024 51%.
>
>
>
> In 2024 catalog, 101,415 galaxies with redshift of 𝑧<0.3
>
> An Empirical Consistent Redshift Bias: A Possible Direct Observation of
> Zwicky’s TL Theory
>
> https://www.mdpi.com/2571-712X/7/3/41

One thing about the "immobile celestial spheres",
is that they spin around. It's not dissimilar
with "independent rotating frames", where galaxies
are large and remote enough to be a platter insofar
as the universe revolves around _it_.

So, looking at historical measured redshift, it's
through a sort of lens, and both high and low values
are accordingly interpreted as blueshift, though
measured as redshift.

Yeah, it's not intended "TLDR", if it's "too long,
didn't read", perhaps you should try another hobby
like improving reading skills. It's like, a line
of people tilling rows, proceed about the same pace,
yet, when it comes to reading, there's quite a range
that basically that egg-head is a steam-shovel.

Anyways the referenced paper helps explain some
things with regards to the interpretation of the
samples according to the statistical hypothesis
so related then as well the Figure 1 and Figure 4
particularly help show the symmetry there as
the author indicates as after removing the bias.